There are many unrenewable resources in the world. Unfortunately bad people are not one of them.

This may sound like a religious rant, but I'm just mentioning a particular belief regarding, and in response to a question raised. The belief is lengthy, so I'll try to condense it: The teaching of the Catholic Church is based upon this principle: The relationship between a married man and woman is unlike all others.

Humans were created of 2 sexes for a definite purpose, each is equal but different in a way that allows one to complete the other by becoming "one," in mind, hiding nothing from each other, compensating for individual flaws of character; in spirit, perfecting one another, in union with God and with his blessing, so that each may become perfect, live according to the truth and be able to be united with it in heaven; and in body, through the sexual act, where the two become one flesh, selflessly giving oneself to the other, and the fruit of the act is the child: the physical union of the two, and the purest symbol of their love. The Church teaches that this can only occur in marriage, that one's body is a "temple of the Holy Spirit," and should be respected, both by others and by oneself. That the sexual act expresses a love that is forever, just as is God's love for humanity, and Christ's love for the Church.

Contrary to what some say, the Church doesn't believe that the homosexual relationship is wrong because it can't bear children, that fact simply reflects the reason: the relationship between two of the same sex can and will never be like that between two opposites.

The Church doesn't condemn contraception because we have to create more children, it condemns it because there is something seriously wrong with a relationship where one or both is forced to treat his or her fertility as a disease. Where the act becomes solely about pleasure, and not about the giving of the self, or becoming closer to one's married partner. The Church sponsors a program called "Natural Family Planning" where the couple together study the wife's fertility cycle and in so doing proper respect for the woman's body, and the relationship in general, is fostered, as well as avoiding pregnancy for legitimate reasons.

The married relationship is supposed to mirror God's love for humanity, and Christ's love for the Church.

There are different kinds of love. It is essentially selflessly caring about the welfare of another, and does not exist solely between a man and a woman.
There is the love of a parent for a child, filial love (between friends "There is no greater love than to give one's life for a friend."), and love of humanity, like helping people you don't even know, simply because you care. There is also love of God.
And of course there is romantic love, unique from the rest, in the Catholic belief, proper between a man and a woman only, and may progress to fulfillment in marriage.

I believe self-control to be the purest expression of any of the types of love. You care enough about this person that you would take all inordinate feelings and instincts and let them go for this person. You become more perfect in doing so, more free from base instincts, and therefore happy as a result - the act of love being its own reward.
As far as the Church is concerned, the "act" would be any act in which is present an acceptance of the lie that the relationship is the same as that of a married couple. Romantic kissing between members of the same sex would seem to display this.

As for this between heterosexual couples, assuming they are married, I'm pretty sure it would still be considered wrong. I've never seen it spelled out in official doctrine, but the doctrine states that any sexual act must be "unitive" (bringing the two together), and "procreative" (Open to the possibility of life. Not necessarily certain, but just not closed). I think that anything else would disrespect the body of one's partner, and one's own body.

That is the belief, just mentioning it.

And as for the Quran and the NT, while the Quran and the Bible are similar, they are quite different right from the beginning. For one, in the Quran, from what I'm told, original sin does not pass on to following generations, having no effect on them, the world, and leaving no need for mankind as a whole to be redeemed by a "messiah" to begin with.

Also the Quran is believed by the followers of Islam to be the pure Word of God in writing. Jesus Christ is believed by Christians to be the pure Word of God made Flesh. He did not add to the Law, he fulfilled and completed it.
The Catholic Church also teaches that Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, John, God having revealed everything necessary for salvation to us.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

I was thinking the exact same thing when I was reading the arguments. One set of arguments is entirely from the Old Testament, and the other set is from the New Testament. I guess it's a matter of what you believe. There are still orthodox societies who do not believe in Jesus as the son of God, the Messiah. So the New Testament is of no value to these people. And then there's the movements that do believe in Jesus, but not in the New Covenant. These people tend to 'listen to' the Old testament...

I dunno, personally I see a very big difference in the God that Jesus tells us about and the God from the Old Testament. The God from the Old Testament is moody, emotional, angered, and even vain... all too human. In one chapter he even visits Lot in his house and washes his feet. =\

The God that Jesus describes seems to be far more spiritual. The older one seems more like a tyrant of sorts that demands loyalty (Testing Abraham if he's willing to sacrifice his son and prove to God his loyalty, etc. Does not sound like an 'all-knowing God' to me.

I am very interested in the bible. But it's hard to found one's beliefs on something that has been copied manually for ages and ages....the bible is an instrument of power, people gain authority from what's written in it. They can say: it's written here, so it's the law. Me wonders, knowing the general corruptness of people in places of power, what has been added/altered and so forth in all these ages before bookprinting was invented. I'm even wondering if it has any authority at all, considering that.



------------------
ORJ_JoS
=Council Member=
+Order of Reborn Jedi+

http://www.rebornjedi.cjb.net

Long live JK! =Best Game Ever=

I was thinking the exact same thing when I was reading the arguments. One set of arguments is entirely from the Old Testament, and the other set is from the New Testament. I guess it's a matter of what you believe. There are still orthodox societies who do not believe in Jesus as the son of God, the Messiah. So the New Testament is of no value to these people. And then there's the movements that do believe in Jesus, but not in the New Covenant. These people tend to 'listen to' the Old testament...

I dunno, personally I see a very big difference in the God that Jesus tells us about and the God from the Old Testament. The God from the Old Testament is moody, emotional, angered, and even vain... all too human. In one chapter he even visits Lot in his house and washes his feet. =\

The God that Jesus describes seems to be far more spiritual. The older one seems more like a tyrant of sorts that demands loyalty (Testing Abraham if he's willing to sacrifice his son and prove to God his loyalty, etc. Does not sound like an 'all-knowing God' to me.

I am very interested in the bible. But it's hard to found one's beliefs on something that has been copied manually for ages and ages....the bible is an instrument of power, people gain authority from what's written in it. They can say: it's written here, so it's the law. Me wonders, knowing the general corruptness of people in places of power, what has been added/altered and so forth in all these ages before bookprinting was invented. I'm even wondering if it has any authority at all, considering that.

------------------
ORJ_JoS
=Council Member=
+Order of Reborn Jedi+

http://www.rebornjedi.cjb.net

Long live JK! =Best Game Ever=

whoooooops, posted twice =\

------------------
ORJ_JoS
=Council Member=
+Order of Reborn Jedi+

http://www.rebornjedi.cjb.net

Long live JK! =Best Game Ever=

Ha ha ha! Here's the e-mail I finally got back.
I love people who tell me what I think. Morons.
How many Baptists actually agree with this church?

------------------
Genesis 22:2-5 - And God said unto Abraham "You must kill your son, Isaac." And Abraham said "What? I can't hear you! You'll have to speak into the microphone." And God said "Check, check, check, check. Jerry, can you pull the high end out. I'm getting some hiss up here."
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited June 14, 2004).]

The idea was to find a man who will sacrifice his son, not one that would. I don't know what parts of the OT you're reading, but try reading the stuff in Psalms. Or in Song of Solomon (if you understand the analogy used in that book). Doesn't seem like a different God to me.

------------------
Genesis 22:2-5 - And God said unto Abraham "You must kill your son, Isaac." And Abraham said "What? I can't hear you! You'll have to speak into the microphone." And God said "Check, check, check, check. Jerry, can you pull the high end out. I'm getting some hiss up here."
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

Try overseeing a nomadic ancient band of goat-herds, in a time largely before nationalism or solid boundaries of whose sheep can graze on what land and who has access to x water or walled city, then try overseeing those people's distant ancestors who live in civilized cities within the Roman empire for the most part. Of /course/ youre going to seem to be and act different, but that doesn't mean that /you/ are contradictory or have gone through some major change of character or nature.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"If all those usefull inventions that are lyable to abuse, should therefore be concealed, there is not any Art or Science, which might be lawfully profest."
-John Wilkins, Mercury, or the Secret and Swift messenger, shewing how a man may with privacy and speed Communicate his thoughts to a Friend at any distance (London, 1641)
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

I'm a little confused. Could you clarify that part of will vs would? The story of Abraham is definately a doozy on the matter of faith anyway

As for your other stuff besides what others have already said, I'm just curious why you have made this e-mail coorespondance to these sites. Hope in making a change for the better? Excersise in argument (in the critical thinking sense, not "I wish to yell at you")? Entertainment? All of the above?

------------------
Check out the following stories over at the Interactive Story Board:
The Never-ending Story Thread or visit the new webcomic version!
The Vision Cycle series
Featured Story: Scions of Light

Sure. I probably worded it poorly. Let me just state it differently.
It's kind of like how God knowing something doesn't make it happen. God knowing that Abraham would sacrifice his son doesn't cause Abraham to demonstrate his faith.

Just as a man was willing to sacrifice his son to God, God was in turn willing to sacrifice His son for man.

I guess. I don't really know. When I find this kind of thing, I just have this compulsion to try to show them that their beliefs contradict the teachings they claim to follow. To be honest, I hate doing it.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited June 15, 2004).]

That was a very interesting analysis of the Catholic belief, it cleared a lot of things up.

Also



Yes, I think this one probably stems from the mother of all disagreements between Islam and Christianity. Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, Muslims don't.
The key criticism of Christians is that they worshipped the prophet Jesus Christ as a false God. He was, according to Islam, a prophet of God, so the Bible isn't wholly wrong.
I think you're right about the sin not getting passed down generations. I think that is fair. Why should I be punished for sins committed by my parents?
(Also, an interesting note, Islam also states that all children under the age of 10 go to paradise automatically)
Islam teaches that you can speak directly to God, there is no middle-man. In a way, it's somewhat simpler, in that you start off with a clean plate, and if you commit sin you displease God, and if you do good you please God, and if God is pleased you spend eternity in Paradise. There's none of the confusing Holy Trinity stuff. But some other concepts that seem simple in Christianity are significantly more abstract in Islam. The Islamic concept of a 'soul' is more akin to the modern concept of 'consciousness', for example.

So, what of the Qu'ran? Was it all just made up by Muhammed (saws) to cuss up Christians?
I believe I outlined in another thread some of the things mentioned in the Qu'ran that Muhammed (saws) could never have possible known, and there is little explanation for this other than (1) it was added recently or (2) it was told to Muhammed (saws) by God.
I don't particularly like repeating myself, but if anyone's interested I'll seek to dig out that thread.

You're not, as far as I know. I seem to recall a verse that says you do not bear the sins of your ancestors. I'll have to check for sure.
Original sin simply means that man is born with the nature to sin. Don't we all sin? There ya go. So does Christianity. I'm not sure what you mean by "middle-man." I could point out the plethera of OT prophecies (definitely things those prophets couldn't have known otherwise) of Jesus, but I don't know if you'd be interested or believe them to be authentic prophecies. Let me know if you want them.

[And in case your wondering, I'm willing to discuss beliefs with you and ask/answer question, but I don't want to debate those beliefs. It usually doesn't go anywhere.]

------------------
Genesis 22:2-5 - And God said unto Abraham "You must kill your son, Isaac." And Abraham said "What? I can't hear you! You'll have to speak into the microphone." And God said "Check, check, check, check. Jerry, can you pull the high end out. I'm getting some hiss up here."
Valuable Life Lesson: Frog + Potato Gun = Blindness
Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited June 15, 2004).]

No, no, the Qu'ran doesn't dispute that God spoke to other people first. They were prophets of God too. As was Jesus.
The Qu'ran does not claim that they all faked it and made everything up, it simply claims that they got it wrong, misinterpreted or misunderstood the word of God, and so God came to Muhammed (saws) to put it straight.

Also, by 'middle-man' I mean Jesus. As a Christian you have to accept Jesus Christ as the son of God and you can only reach God through Jesus. You cannot just follow the commandments and live a good life, you have to accept Jesus as the son of God to get into heaven.
This is what I was told by the local theologist. Is this just a belief held by some particular denomination? I always get confused with all the different schools of thought.



Hmmm.. So, we are naturally inclined to sin? Hmm, I guess that makes sense in the way that you have to actually put effort into doing 'good'. But I don't like the idea that we're born evil.
I think Islam is a little more complicated on this topic. Islam agrees that people don't always have total control over their lives, and that many factors about you are already determined, such as your family and upbringing and culture and that. Islam accepts that we are not all born equal (though it does say that this is a bad thing, I think). So, someone that is born into an 'evil' family will be more inclined to do evil, so if they do good then that counts as doubly good. Someone that is born into a 'good' family is more inclined to do good, and so for them to do evil is doubly evil.
Allah judges people on an individual basis.

Yeah, you're right. It depends on which books of the Old Testament you read. That's confusing to begin with. God is very 'versatile' in the OT.

------------------
ORJ_JoS
=Council Member=
+Order of Reborn Jedi+

http://www.rebornjedi.cjb.net

Long live JK! =Best Game Ever=

Well sin isn't passed down as a punishment in our belief, but the presence of sin has a great effect on reality, as well as human beings as a whole. One of the things passed on was "concupiscence," or the inclination to sin. The turning away from God, in a way, shattered this originally perfect reality.

Because of the concept of "Natural Law," which I've mentioned in passing before, everything you do effects those around you because of the relationship we are in. When I sin, not only do I harm God, myself and whomever I've sinned against, but I also harm society in ways such as setting a bad example.

Man was created wholly different from all creation. Whereas the angels chose to accept or reject God in an instant at their creation, Man exists in Time and Space, and this choice is dragged out. Man can fall, but man can also find redemption, and choose God in a completely different way than all of creation.
In sin, man rejected his place in creation, he refused his place as a creature of the creator. But it isn't over, Man doesn't choose once and for all, because his nature doesn't allow it. Regardless, things can't just go back to normal after sin has entered the world. Man rejected God, and God can't make him reaccept him, God can't force Man, who has been granted a separate will, to love him. God can't make things better for man, simmillar to in the last post, love would dictate that man must do it himself, out of love.

God never abandoned man, but man must come back, and this is accomplished in the person of Jesus Christ. As man he can redeem humanity with God, as God he is the perfect sacrifice. His obedience to the end nullifies Adam's disobedience. "By dying he destroyed our death, by rising he restored our life."

Sin enslaves man. It holds him down while assuring him he is free, it makes him sad while assuring him that he is happy. It is a message to God: "You are not my God, and I am not your creation." -In both our beliefs an obvious lie, no matter how much you believe it. A lie will never make you happy, only the truth can, and that truth is God.
Most sects of Christianity, at least Catholicism, recognise an "age of reason," at which a child is capable of differentiating right from wrong. Before this age, the child would automatically go to Heaven, because Hell is a choice, not a punishment. The choice being a willful and eternal rejection of the truth, something a child is not capable of doing. In Christianity, The choice of paridise rest solely on you, not a middle man, or God. God wants you to be with him, but it is your choice alone to accept the truth, or your choice to accept a lie. The truth will make you happy, made perfect in God, the lie is a delusion, and can never bring you happiness. It is rather confusing. But I disagree.

In Christianity there is the pure, singular, and perfect Truth - God. God, like us has a self-image. God is perfect, and so that self-image is one and the same, and a perfect reflection of the Truth. The same, but separate. That reflection is the conveyed truth, the Word of God - the Father and the Son. God is perfect, and so He must be eternally capable of love. Before he created anything, he could love, which would require more than just himself, and yet there had to be just himself.

The love of the Father for the Son is the Holy Spirit. A separate entity, yet still one with the source - the love that connects the Three. None was created, but were always there, just as the Truth was always there. The love of the Truth for the revealed Truth, the Holy Spirit, is what protects
the revealed Truth in this world, still shattered by sin. Christ promised a Paraclete who would guide them to the Truth always, the Holy Spirit.

Man no longer has to die, being redeemed with God, and no longer under the jurisdiction of Death which falls only over sinners. This reality however was destined for destruction the moment it was warped by sin. That is the purpose of the "second coming of Christ" in Christianity. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the idea of Faith and not Works saving you is a lie. They are interconnected. There is no reason to follow the commandments if you don't believe that they are the truth in faith, and one can't truly believe it and not be willing to act on it. Love, as far as the Church is concerned, requires action, for reasons I mentioned in my last post.

The idea of faith and not works are the ideas of Martin Luther - a protestant reformer. It is based of the idea that man can't make himself worthy of Heaven, and Jesus is the only one who can. The Church denies this.

Man can't do it alone, but God can strengthen him through grace.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Didn't Jesus erase original sin with his death? (provided you recognize him as your savior)

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

Okay, so the idea that you can only get into Heaven through Jesus Christ is a modern protestant idea?

A Christian could refuse Christ as the son of God, but still follow his teachings and live a good life and still get into heaven?

This is interesting.

This is what I don't like about a lot of religions. We're made to 'believe' and 'accept' God, purely out of fear to lose an eternal afterlife. I'm not saying it's God who does that, but people in Churches sure do, with the bible or other books of faith in their hands as The Law.

I'm always thinking: "What if I were born in Northern Siberia, what if I died without ever having heard the word of God? Would that condemn me?"

Or "If I were born into a Buddhist Society, and raised as a Buddhist... it'd be the most natural thing...I wouldn't be 'accepting Jesus' or whatever... would that condemn me?"

I just can't believe there is only one Truth, and only one of those thousands of religions out there is right.

I think if I were God, It wouldn't matter to me if someone accepted Jesus or not, if someone were a homosexual or not, as long as the person would have at least tried to be a good person. Heck, If I were Love above all, I'd forgive even the sickest of Sinners.

------------------
ORJ_JoS
=Council Member=
+Order of Reborn Jedi+

http://www.rebornjedi.cjb.net

Long live JK! =Best Game Ever=

[This message has been edited by ORJ_JoS (edited June 15, 2004).]

-Initial response: Objection, speculation.

-Amendment to initial response: I know a guy who goes up to Siberia a fair bit, or has been in the past, one of his friend's brothers works with the Siberian tiger project. And it seems to me from what he's said, that there's a decently strong russian orthodox influence up there even..

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"If all those usefull inventions that are lyable to abuse, should therefore be concealed, there is not any Art or Science, which might be lawfully profest."
-John Wilkins, Mercury, or the Secret and Swift messenger, shewing how a man may with privacy and speed Communicate his thoughts to a Friend at any distance (London, 1641)
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

No offense, but what did you expect? This church is nationally recognized (for all the wrong reasons). I'm sure they get this all the time. They are so entrenched in the idea that they hold the One True Interpretation that they can't step back and examine themselves for a moment. (Which usually entitles you to point out how very, very Wrong those "Christians" who don't have The Right Answer are.) Though you made a good go of it, no response stands a chance against them.

... and yeah, I'm just itching to post a rant to respond to the email they sent you, but it would also be pointless. And it's also late.

[This message has been edited by Dylan (edited June 15, 2004).]

Very interesting, actually. Christianity believes the same. However, there is one critical difference: With the sacrifice of Jesus, and an individual's acceptance of this sacrifice, you're sins are removed, and God can see you as pure. Islam (as far as I know) does not offer any such cleansing. Will Allah see you as pure?
Jesus's life & death were prophecied lots and lots of times in the old testament. It's why so many believed in Him. His life fit the OT prophecies perfectly. And His pure sacrifice took the place of animal sacrifices that had been necessary for thousands of years, and were only able to cover sins, not cleanse them.
These animal sacrifices were practiced from the beginning days of Judaism. (They are not practiced anymore, strangely.) This is why I don't understand why God (from an Islamic stand-point) would change His mind. God is supposed to be perfect. Changing His mind would indicate an error in His previous thought, wouldn't it?
(I still don't know if you wanted that list. It matches up OT prophecies to NT fulfillments.) No. Both faith and works are required. Faith is more important, however, since works will not get you into heaven. Faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Or worded another way, believing in Christ without living a Christ-like life means that one's faith is irrelevant. Take the God Hates America website, for example. Not Christ-like at all. A lot of people don't understand that, so I'll explain. It's not about fear of loosing an eternal afterlife. Having faith in Christ is comparable to having faith in a loved one (like a girlfriend, except Christ isn't a girl, of course). By having faith in someone, it shows that you want to be with that person.
To be with a person you love, you do things that person likes.
If there's something about yourself you want to change for the one you love, won't the one you love help you, if they truly love you?
This is what Christianity is about: a personal relationship with God. It's not about doing good things to save yourself, because such things are impossible.
There is an additional reason as to why God sacrificed himself for us: Not just to relieve us of our sins, but to actually demonstrate and prove His love for mankind - to prove that He was true to His own laws by fulfilling them instead of abolishing them - to prove that He would go through agonizing torment and death for nothing more than to be with those whom He loves the most (mankind). Anyone who demonstrates their love through living Christ-like will be accepted by Christ. A relationship without expressions of love almost always fails. I really can't understand such a love, but I'm certainly not going to complain about it.

[Let me clarify that a "Christ-like" life is only possible with the help (salvation) that God provided, like in my analogy above. I'm not trying to say you have to be perfect - because you can't be.]

I actually didn't notice which church it was until they mentioned it in that last e-mail.
Nonetheless, it never hurts to try. I'm not going to spontaneously combust or something because they think I'm a heretic.

[This message has been edited by DogSRoOL (edited June 16, 2004).]

Not exactly. The Bible says that "no one can see the Father except through the Son." And says that baptism is necessary, being "born of spirit" (through baptism) to enter heaven. In the Catholic view, someone not exposed to the truth would be left to the mercy of God, and for those who wanted to be baptised but couldn't for whatever reason (literally couldn't not just wasn't quite willing) there are doctrines of "Baptism of desire," and for unbaptised martyrs there is "Baptism by fire"

For a Christian, however, who knows the truth, but willingly rejects it in part or in whole, such as not believing Christ was divine, or died on the cross, I don't think that would suffice. Without being the Son of God and dying there could be no way his death could have reconciled humans with God, and entrance to heaven would still be impossible. I understand what you are saying, and agree that one brought up under a different religion, living a good life would be the only thing that really mattered, but I really have to disagree about the multiple truths idea.

The concept of a "truth" existing implies that everything else is false. Even if you weren't exposed to it, it would still exist, even though you aren't at fault for not believing it.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

[This message has been edited by Bounty Hunter 4 hire (edited June 16, 2004).]